Michigan v. Bryant
2011 U.S. LEXIS 1713, 562 U.S. 344, 179 L. Ed. 2d 93 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made to law enforcement are nontestimonial, and thus not barred by the Confrontation Clause, when made under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. An ongoing emergency can extend beyond the initial victim and may encompass a threat to the police and the public, especially when an armed shooter's location and motive are unknown.
Facts:
- Around 3:00 a.m., Richard Bryant shot Anthony Covington through the back door of Bryant's house in Detroit, Michigan.
- Covington, mortally wounded by a gunshot to his abdomen, drove himself to a nearby gas station.
- At approximately 3:25 a.m., police officers responded to a radio dispatch and found Covington lying on the ground in the gas station parking lot.
- Covington appeared to be in great pain and had difficulty speaking.
- Police asked Covington what had happened, who had shot him, and where the shooting occurred.
- Covington identified "Rick" (Bryant) as the shooter, stated the shooting occurred at Bryant's house, and provided a physical description of Bryant.
- The questioning by police lasted between 5 and 10 minutes, ending when emergency medical services arrived.
- Covington was transported to a hospital where he died within hours.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Michigan prosecuted Richard Bryant in a Michigan trial court on charges of second-degree murder and firearm possession.
- At trial, police officers testified about statements made to them by the victim, Anthony Covington, before he died.
- A jury convicted Bryant on all charges.
- Bryant, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction.
- Bryant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan, which remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Davis v. Washington.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the conviction, with the State of Michigan as appellee.
- Bryant again appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
- The Supreme Court of Michigan, with Bryant as appellant, reversed his conviction, holding that Covington's statements were testimonial and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause.
- The State of Michigan, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a dying victim's statements to police, made at the scene of the crime about the identity of the shooter and the circumstances of the shooting, violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when the primary purpose of the interrogation, viewed objectively, is to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No. The admission of Covington's statements does not violate the Confrontation Clause because the primary purpose of the interrogation was to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency. An objective analysis of the circumstances—including the use of a gun, the unknown location and motive of the shooter, and the victim's severe medical condition—shows that the situation was a continuing threat to the public and the responding officers. The police questions were necessary to assess this threat, not primarily to establish past events for future prosecution. The informality of the encounter in an exposed, public area further distinguishes it from the formal, testimonial interrogations in cases like Crawford. Therefore, Covington's statements were nontestimonial.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The admission of Covington's statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause, but not because of the flawed 'primary purpose' test. The proper inquiry is whether the interrogation has the formality and solemnity of the historical practices the Confrontation Clause was designed to prevent. Because the questioning of Covington was highly informal, conducted at a chaotic scene while he was mortally wounded, and did not produce any formalized testimonial material like an affidavit, his statements were not 'testimonial' and the Confrontation Clause is not implicated.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. The admission of Covington's statements violates the Confrontation Clause. The Court's finding of an 'ongoing emergency' is a 'transparently false' fiction, as the shooting had occurred 25 minutes prior and six blocks away. The primary purpose of an interrogation should be determined from the declarant's perspective, and Covington’s purpose was clearly to identify his past assailant for investigation and prosecution. The police also acted as investigators, not as responders to an immediate threat. The majority's multi-factor, context-dependent inquiry is an amorphous balancing test that resurrects the discredited reliability analysis of Ohio v. Roberts and distorts the core principles of Crawford.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The admission of Covington's statements violates the Confrontation Clause. Agreeing with Justice Scalia, the statements were testimonial because they were part of an investigation into a past crime. The decision creates an expansive and unwarranted exception to the Confrontation Clause for violent crimes. While the historical 'dying declaration' exception to the confrontation requirement might have been relevant, the prosecution failed to properly raise this issue in the state courts, so the Supreme Court cannot address it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the 'ongoing emergency' exception to the Confrontation Clause established in Davis v. Washington. By expanding the scope of an 'emergency' to include ongoing threats to the public and police, and by adopting a highly context-dependent, multi-factor analysis, the Court makes it more likely that statements to police in the immediate aftermath of a violent crime will be deemed nontestimonial. This marks a potential shift away from the more rigid, formalistic test of Crawford towards a more flexible standard that critics argue reintroduces elements of the reliability analysis that Crawford had rejected. Future litigation will likely focus on defining the temporal and geographic limits of an 'ongoing emergency' under this expanded framework.
